Yeah, but the war happened and most Democrats supported it and most of the American people did, as did most of the media.

It was divisive mostly because of American casualties, not Iraqi ones. The Gulf War was very popular.

I realize that about 20% of the population are amazing people, but that's not enough. War is still seen as a reasonable solution far too often.

I'm pissed with people like Jay Leno who made it easier and beat down everyone who opposed it.

Obama supposedly was against the war, but on practical grounds, not moral ones and he continues to see it as a viable solution, including to win a 2nd term. Wasting foreigner's lives is always easy. I'm trying to make it a bit harder.

I'm going to dip my toe in the conspiracy waters here:

The war in Iraq would have had much less support by Democrats if Sen. Paul Wellstone, my Senator, had not died. His death came in the Fall of 2002. He was one of the few people in the government who spoke out against the Bush administration regardless of the consequences. He died when the chartered plane he was in crashed in what was not terrible weather. It is impossible to prove any wrongdoing, but I still think of how forceful and evil the Bush administration was and am left wondering.

Wellstone spoke his conscience always. He was the voice of my opposition to the war. So, with his surprising death, a lot of people were stunned into if not silence, at least shock.

Have you been watching Fox News again? Seriously, what are you talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muldfeld

I'm pissed with people like Jay Leno who made it easier and beat down everyone who opposed it.

Well it's true that Leno does speak for most Americans, fair enough, you made your point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muldfeld

Obama supposedly was against the war, but on practical grounds, not moral ones and he continues to see it as a viable solution, including to win a 2nd term. Wasting foreigner's lives is always easy. I'm trying to make it a bit harder.

Are you serious? I think you could make a solid argument that a super majority of the mainstream media supported it.

The American media is a large part of the reason this war was supported by the public. Their behaviour and reporting in the run up to the war was shameful. Nevermind the embedding and so on.

That's the recollection I have also. The impression I got from this side of the pond was that in late 2002 to early 2003 period in pacticular the drumbeats were rolling and that at that time dissenting voices in the US mainstream media were comparatively rare. I think after Abu Ghraib there was more of a balance.

There were reports the week of that fluxuated from 49% to 54%, but you're right it soon went up for a short while.

But I don't know how someone could say the majority of media supported it.

Quote:

CNN/USA/GALLUP TRENDS

Would you favor or oppose sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?

February 19-21, 2001
FAVOR: 52%
OPPOSE: 42%
NO OPINION: 6%

November 26-27, 2001
FAVOR: 74%
OPPOSE: 20%
NO OPINION: 6%

Would you favor or oppose sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?

September 2-4, 2002
FAVOR: 58%
OPPOSE: 36%
NO OPINION: 6%

Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?

October 3-6, 2002
FAVOR: 53%
OPPOSE: 40%
NO OPINION: 7%

October 14-17, 2002
FAVOR: 56%
OPPOSE: 37%
NO OPINION 7%

November 22-24, 2002
FAVOR: 58%
OPPOSE: 37%
NO OPINION: 5%

December 19-22, 2002
FAVOR: 53%
OPPOSE: 38%
NO OPINION: 9%

January 23-24, 2003
FAVOR: 52%
OPPOSE: 43%
NO OPINION: 5%

January 31 - February 2, 2003
FAVOR: 58%
OPPOSE: 38%
NO OPINION: 4%

February 24-26, 2003
FAVOR: 59%
OPPOSE: 37%
NO OPINION: 4%

March 14-15, 2003
FAVOR: 64%
OPPOSE: 33%
NO OPINION: 3%

Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?

March 22-23, 2003
FAVOR: 72%
OPPOSE: 25%
NO OPINION: 3%

April 22-23, 2003
FAVOR: 71%
OPPOSE: 26%
NO OPINION: 3%

October 24-26, 2003
FAVOR: 54%
OPPOSE: 43%
NO OPINION: 3%

November 19-21, 2004
FAVOR: 48%
OPPOSE: 46%
NO OPINION: 6%

March 18-20, 2005
FAVOR: 47%
OPPOSE: 47%
NO OPINION: 6%

The majority of people in the United States supported using US ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power even before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the country. There continued to be majority support for the removal of Saddam Hussein as well as the war after his removal until the year 2005.

The majority of people in the United States supported using US ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power even before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the country. There continued to be majority support for the removal of Saddam Hussein as well as the war after his removal until the year 2005.

This doesn't say a lot of the majority of the American people. If that makes me an elitist, well then so be it.

(Though if I must be counted an elitist it would be nice to get the elitist paycheck and lifestyle rather than regular working man's salary that I have now).

Clinton and the Republican majority late is his presidency played up the Iraq threat, and I don't think the media, and therefore the American, public bothered to go any deeper. There were the African U.S. Embassies bombed in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000. Saddam Hussein was a convenient scapegoat even though he was contained by sanctions and the no-fly zones. I think he simplistically was framed as the mastermind of terrorism that emanated from the Middle East in the minds of the public. I think that explains the polling.

The intelligence services knew that it wasn't Hussein, it was Bin Laden (and others). Bush conveniently parlayed 9/11 and the mistrust against Hussein into an unnecessary war against Iraq. No one is arguing that Hussein was a good guy, but if we needed to invade Iraq, what about Sudan? Syria? Others? (And wasn't Saddam executed quite quickly? What would he have told the International Criminal Court?)

It was a shitty war, and it will be interesting to learn what exactly all has happened. There obviously is something to the birth defects.

Clinton and the Republican majority late is his presidency played up the Iraq threat, and I don't think the media, and therefore the American, public bothered to go any deeper.

The fact that Saddam was openly violating the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in the late 1990s is not something that was played up. Its a fact. These were restrictions designed to CONTAIN Saddam, and they were now being violated.

Also, what Saddam did in the 1980s and early 1990s to the region and the world are facts that don't need any playing up. They are the reason that Saddam had to be contained under extensive sanctions and weapons embargo or be removed from power.

Quote:

There were the African U.S. Embassies bombed in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000. Saddam Hussein was a convenient scapegoat even though he was contained by sanctions and the no-fly zones. I think he simplistically was framed as the mastermind of terrorism that emanated from the Middle East in the minds of the public. I think that explains the polling.

No one in either the Clinton administration, Democrats, Republicans, the media ever accused Saddam Hussein of being involved in the Embassy bombings in 1998 or the USS cole bombing in 2000.

The 1991 Gulf War which the United States public supported had nothing to do with terrorism. It was all about Saddam's threats to the region and the world through his invasions and attacks on neighboring countries, the threat of his forces siezing or sabotoging the majority of the planets energy supply, and his massive use of weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield. These are the issues that people are were thinking about when they voted in the poll in February 1991.

The containtment regime of sanctions and weapons embargo started to fall apart in 1999 as countries that bordered Iraq began to loosen their restrictions on trade and other countries began making deals and flying into Iraq in violation of the sanctions. What was a trickle in 1999 had become a roaring flood by 2002, with Saddam making over 3 Billion dollars in 2002 through illegal oil sales and all sanctions and embargo restrictions gone from the Iraq/Syria border. China was also at the time aiding Iraq's military with communications equipment and improving its air defenses. All in direct violation of UN Security council resolutions.

With the key means of containment disappearing, the only way to deal with Saddam was to remove his regime from power.

Quote:

The intelligence services knew that it wasn't Hussein, it was Bin Laden (and others). Bush conveniently parlayed 9/11 and the mistrust against Hussein into an unnecessary war against Iraq.

Again, no one ever alleged that Saddam was responsible for the embassy bombings in 1998 or the bombing of the Cole in 2000.

The opinion polls show that Bush already had the majority support he needed long before 9/11 and probably before he ever came into office, to remove Saddam.

At the time in 2002 when Bush made his case against Iraq, Saddam's regime was in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement that occured because of Saddam's brutal and illegal invasion and annexation of another country, Kuwait. It also involved his launching of Ballistic Missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel, his other invasions and attacks into Saudi Arabia, and the massive environmental damage done when he ordered his military to set fire to all the oil wells in Kuwait as well as leaking oil into the Persian Gulf from Kuwait City. In addition, there was his massive use of WMD killing thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians on the battlefield and his refusal to verifiably disarm of such WMD.

Saddam's violations, past history and behavior, failure to comply with the demands of the international community, and the crumbling and disappearnce of most of the sanctions and weapons embargo designed to try to contain him, meant that invading Iraq to remove Saddam was an absolute necessity to maintain regional and global security.

Quote:

No one is arguing that Hussein was a good guy, but if we needed to invade Iraq, what about Sudan? Syria? Others?

Syria and Sudan did not invade or attack any countries during the time period. Saddam invaded and attack four different countries. Syria and Sudan did not use Weapons of Mass destruction against anyone. Saddam used Weapons of Mass destruction on a massive scale not seen since World War I. Syria and Sudan were not under any UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Saddam's regime was in violation of 17 such resolutions. Syria and Sudan had not engaged in armed conflict that threaten the world largest oil reserves with siezure and sabotage. Saddam's regime had just engaged in such actions and had annexed the entire country of Kuwait.

To sum up, Saddam's regime's behavior and actions over the past several years before it was removed was unique and extremely threatening to the region and the world. His continued non-compliance and violations plus the crumbling of the main levers of containment, sanctions and the weapons embargo, made removing the regime a necessity.